There are 14736 comments on the
News24
story from Aug 27, 2012, titled Why Atheism Will Replace Religion.
In it, News24 reports that:

Please note that for this article "Atheism" also includes agnostics, deists, pagans, wiccans... in other words non-religious.

You will notice this is a statement of fact. And to be fact it is supported by evidence (see references below). Now you can have "faith" that this is not true, but by the very definition of faith, that is just wishful thinking.

<quoted text>I never wrote that people should free themselves from ideology, only that freedom from the need to defend it puts the sense of wonder back into seeking knowledge about the fabulous planet that we inhabit and the universe of which it is such a tiny part; that the need to debate limits one's thinking because the focus on ideas that support one's argument leads to a sort of intellectual tunnel vision. Letting go of the need to defend one's ideology frees the mind to see ideas in their full context. Such are the rewards for letting go of the ego's need to "win."

<quoted text>I believe in Nature, as I pointed out in an earlier post.

So then, if as Spinoza suggested, we exist as a means for the universe to learn about itself .... is that not a "God" of a sort? Although, by this proposition, I would not see any rationale to believe in "divine intervention" making any sort of sense.

If you were to believe in Spinoza's God, could you really call yourself an "Atheist"?

How would you prove such a God exists? How would you prove such a God does not exist?

<quoted text>But you must admit, as Skeptic points out, it therefore 'equates' Knowledge and Faith where no such equality exists. In a way, our doubts are the only 'evidence' godbots have, whereas evidence of a tangible reality grows with each passing second.

Hear hear, finally someone understands why I demand proof from people how lie about god being real...

Agnosticism is not a position, its an excuse for not assessing information that is readily available.

Agnosticism is like not showing up for the exam because you did not do enough homework, and labeling willful ignorance as a "position".

<quoted text>So then, if as Spinoza suggested, we exist as a means for the universe to learn about itself .... is that not a "God" of a sort? Although, by this proposition, I would not see any rationale to believe in "divine intervention" making any sort of sense.If you were to believe in Spinoza's God, could you really call yourself an "Atheist"?How would you prove such a God exists? How would you prove such a God does not exist?

The definition of god itself is problematic. There is no universally accepted definition and no facts to define what it is.

Because of this, it isn't really a thing, just an empty headed made up concept that mentally ill people enjoy claiming they have contact with.

<quoted text>The definition of god itself is problematic. There is no universally accepted definition and no facts to define what it is.Because of this, it isn't really a thing, just an empty headed made up concept that mentally ill people enjoy claiming they have contact with.

Good point! So if you can not define a thing, it is rather silly to claim you know it exists or it doesn't .... right??

It seems, even based on your own description, agnosticism, which you rightly called "the highest form of ignorance", is the right call. There is no way to know ... possibly because there is nothing to know.

<quoted text>Computers have a long, long, long way to go. Even a Josephson-junction-superconduc ting-supercomputer could only give us a brute-force simulation of what our brains can do. You could probably program such a computer to recognize a match, pick it up and light a cigarette, but, it would have to be reprogrammed to scratch it's own ass.

Whatever one may say: the nuclear Age is the end . AKWs in a capitalist System is the last for human Society. We will not overcome it, it is too late. Together with the other natural calamities we will not survive as mankind.

Oh and on that "designed to fall apart" note ... we are. Momma Nature knows about 'transcription errors' and she knows that if organisms were 'allowed' to live forever or breed indefinitely, we would eventually be passing a lot of seriously screwed up genes down the line. Can't let that happen.She's in it for the species, boys, so let's keep those zippers up and both hands on the wheel!!!

<quoted text>It is not I who is equating Faith and Knowledge, rather the Agnostic who declares 'we cannot know'. It is only here, on this particular thread where "Atheism" has liberally been defined as "includes agnostics, deists, pagans, wiccans" etc. In fact, Atheism does not include or encompass these lessor or philosophically ambiguous divergences.I know there is no God because I have looked, admittedly through other's eyes, at our reality from dancing sub-atomics to filigreed galaxies and he's not there. Anyone who says different best come up with some evidence beyond mere longing. If you relish the 'fog of uncertainty', so be it. Sounds a lot like "fence setting" to me. We're here to argue the one side or the other, not the gray area in-between. Hell, it's so small it's more like an infinitely fine line connecting two points ... not an "area" at all.

I find in the nuclear Age and the final end of man religions are superfluous. Our survival chances as man are Zero. We are on its way of extinction.

<quoted text>So then, if as Spinoza suggested, we exist as a means for the universe to learn about itself .... is that not a "God" of a sort? Although, by this proposition, I would not see any rationale to believe in "divine intervention" making any sort of sense.If you were to believe in Spinoza's God, could you really call yourself an "Atheist"?How would you prove such a God exists? How would you prove such a God does not exist?

The brief descriptions of "Spinoza's God" I have read simply equate "God" to Nature. Nature devoid of any of our popular anthropomorphism's that invest God with what are clearly reflections of our own notions. I really don't believe the Universe wants "to learn about itself". That's what drives us ... the Universe as a system of physical laws lacks even that capacity. "Spinoza's God" just seems an attempt to revere Nature as we would a more conventional reverential 'construct'. Now, if Spinoza was really saying the Universe has it's own motives and goals then that's a Horse of a Different Color. It would be, in fact, the same old song & dance.

On the other hand, we are clearly 'matter organized to such an extent that it wants to understand itself' and perhaps unique or, at least, very rare in the Universe. That does, I believe, place a burden of responsibility upon us, while also investing us with that 'specialness' godbots seem to yearn for. We have some obligation to preserve and utilize our intelligence and make efforts to spread it around. But, ultimately, in a Universe destined for some kind of 'heat death' or 'big crunch', even these goals are entirely of our own ambition, not part of some 'grand scheme' by the disorganized matter that surrounds us.

We are tiny parts of something very big. Scary. Something inside us seems to murmur that if we do the right thing or say the right thing or worship something the right way we can enhance our position. Nope. Nothing knows or care what we do or say. We just have to learn to deal with it. Those who have learned, more or less, to 'deal with it' call themselves Atheists, for lack of a better name.

<quoted text>Hear hear, finally someone understands why I demand proof from people how lie about god being real...Agnosticism is not a position, its an excuse for not assessing information that is readily available.Agnosticism is like not showing up for the exam because you did not do enough homework, and labeling willful ignorance as a "position".

<quoted text>The definition of god itself is problematic. There is no universally accepted definition and no facts to define what it is.Because of this, it isn't really a thing, just an empty headed made up concept that mentally ill people enjoy claiming they have contact with.

There ain't been a god one that wasn't anthropomorped in some kind of way. Invested with all our hopes, dreams and jealousies. Kind of silly really. Even a Universe wanting to understand itself ... a reflection of us.

<quoted text>Good point! So if you can not define a thing, it is rather silly to claim you know it exists or it doesn't .... right??It seems, even based on your own description, agnosticism, which you rightly called "the highest form of ignorance", is the right call. There is no way to know ... possibly because there is nothing to know.

I believe you've missed his point. No offense intended, Agnostics are rocking the boat and that's certainly a step in the right direction!

<quoted text>Whatever one may say: the nuclear Age is the end . AKWs in a capitalist System is the last for human Society. We will not overcome it, it is too late. Together with the other natural calamities we will not survive as mankind.

We have our minds, our intellects, the resources of a Solar System at our disposal ... if we don't survive it's our own fault. Evolution has provided us a way to survive virtually any calamity. Unfortunately,'stupid' genes seem to be dominant. I like to look at it as if all the wars, all the churches, all the religions, in fact, any thing that breeds ignorance and detracts from our ultimate destiny 'off planet' are, well ... evil.

<quoted text>I find in the nuclear Age and the final end of man religions are superfluous. Our survival chances as man are Zero. We are on its way of extinction.

If we only stay on the Earth, we are indeed doomed. The "nuclear Age" is as likely to give us propulsion systems that might ultimately save us as it is to destroy us. Let's not be too harsh on the old Nuclear Age. I think we've managed to eek our way through most of the Mutual Assured Destruction scenarios.

<quoted text>The brief descriptions of "Spinoza's God" I have read simply equate "God" to Nature. Nature devoid of any of our popular anthropomorphism's that invest God with what are clearly reflections of our own notions. I really don't believe the Universe wants "to learn about itself". That's what drives us ... the Universe as a system of physical laws lacks even that capacity. "Spinoza's God" just seems an attempt to revere Nature as we would a more conventional reverential 'construct'. Now, if Spinoza was really saying the Universe has it's own motives and goals then that's a Horse of a Different Color. It would be, in fact, the same old song & dance.On the other hand, we are clearly 'matter organized to such an extent that it wants to understand itself' and perhaps unique or, at least, very rare in the Universe. That does, I believe, place a burden of responsibility upon us, while also investing us with that 'specialness' godbots seem to yearn for. We have some obligation to preserve and utilize our intelligence and make efforts to spread it around. But, ultimately, in a Universe destined for some kind of 'heat death' or 'big crunch', even these goals are entirely of our own ambition, not part of some 'grand scheme' by the disorganized matter that surrounds us.We are tiny parts of something very big. Scary. Something inside us seems to murmur that if we do the right thing or say the right thing or worship something the right way we can enhance our position. Nope. Nothing knows or care what we do or say. We just have to learn to deal with it. Those who have learned, more or less, to 'deal with it' call themselves Atheists, for lack of a better name.

RE: ".... the universe wanting to learn or having it's own motives ..." .... prove it does or prove it doesn't ..... I'll wait ....

<quoted text>Whatever one may say: the nuclear Age is the end . AKWs in a capitalist System is the last for human Society. We will not overcome it, it is too late. Together with the other natural calamities we will not survive as mankind.

I've often stated that mankind will create it's own successor, either by accident or on purpose. Even if not by our own action .... Evolution does seem to march on .... in the long run, you are correct, mankind is doomed .... but then, so what?

<quoted text>I've often stated that mankind will create it's own successor, either by accident or on purpose. Even if not by our own action .... Evolution does seem to march on .... in the long run, you are correct, mankind is doomed .... but then, so what?

Do you mean EVERYONE who is born dies? What is THAT for humanity being doomed?

"Every man is at a loss" Quran says, "Except those who believe, do good deeds, enjoin truth to others and show patience and perseverance (received by doing do)"

<quoted text>Do you mean EVERYONE who is born dies? What is THAT for humanity being doomed?"Every man is at a loss" Quran says, "Except those who believe, do good deeds, enjoin truth to others and show patience and perseverance (received by doing do)"They die in this world and get eternal life in the next world.

Still no word from you as to why your religion abuses, rapes and murder little girls and why you support such barbarity.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.